User talk:Warriorboy85

Speedy deletion nomination of Allied Artists International, Inc.
A tag has been placed on Allied Artists International, Inc. 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 a company or corporation, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Commercial Metal
A tag has been placed on Commercial Metal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. gordonrox24 (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kenny Marquez
A tag has been placed on Kenny Marquez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Kyle  1278  00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Yes i have noticed the major changes that have happened to the article since i first tagged it and there are a lot of good references so i have removed the tags so there should be no problem with the article.  Kyle  1278  01:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Grammy award nominees
I have nominated grammy award nominees for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —  Σ xplicit  04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Explicit,

I just responded to your nomination to delete the category for Grammy award nominees in the talk section of that category, which is where I believe it told me to make the comments. Can you please tell me first if I put the objection in the correct place and two, whether you can read my reasoning for the category and explain why you feel otherwise.

Thanks,

Todd --Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Marquez
Hi, and thanks for your question on my talk page. You asked how to wikify this article. 'Wikifying' generally means bringing an article into line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but in particular means two things: adding sections, and adding links to other Wikipedia articles. You did the first part, and I did the second here - as you can see, basically every time you mention something that someone might not have heard of, you should make it a link to another Wikipedia article. It's generally better to have too many links than too few.

Unfortunately, when doing this, I noticed there is another problem with the article - it lacks third-party references, that is references published by people unconnected with the subject (Allied Artists Music Group, as they're his publishers). To further comply with Wikipedia guidelines, the article should have references from independent sources; for example, Allmusic is a source used in many articles. I hope that's clear; if you have any further questions, let me know. Goodbye for now, and happy editing! Robofish (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks fine to me now. I have removed the template. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Renegade5-22-09.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Renegade5-22-09.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Renegade5-31-09.jpg
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Renegade5-31-09.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-3.0 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you. —teb728 t c 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image or Media Permissions
Thank you for uploading an image or media.

Whilst, the image or media appears to be licensed, It would be helpful if you could confirm the photographer, author or copyright owner of the media concerned, has granted release under the licenses shown. You can do this by getting them to make a formal release,or by confirming any permission you obtained, by writing to the OTRS permissions queue as detailed in WP:COPYREQ.

If you have already approached OTRS, then please get an administrator with OTRS access to update the image information to confirm this. Files affected: File:Renegade2.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The image in question comes from a website that states "All materials ©2009 Renegade World Music, Inc. - All rights reserved." As such, unless we can see proof that you have been given permission to use this image on Wikipedia, or you are in fact the copyright owner the image is considered a copyright violation, and will be deleted. To confirm the permissions, please email . Thank you, Tiptoety  talk 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your post on my talk page
I replied to your post at User talk:TEB728. In my reply I said that down the line someone might question your copyright ownership; I see in the section above that people are already doing so. Be sure you document permission in one of the three ways I talk about in the first paragraph of my reply. —teb728 t c 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Help adding logo to infobox
Hi Warriorboy85,

I think the main problem is that Image:RenegadeLogo.png doesn't exist. A secondary problem is that there is already an "Img=" parameter to the template, which includes the image 'renegade2.jpg'. Hope this helps. Jakew (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I'm afraid that this infobox doesn't have a logo parameter.  I've just been looking at Infobox Musical artist, and it appears that this is intentional (it says, "Logos and other graphics are to be avoided in this field in accordance with WP:ACCESS and WP:FAIR.")  Sorry I can't be more help.  Jakew (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International Asset Search of all associated and allied artists
Regarding the search for assets of the allied persons who call themselves Allied Artists International, I only have the preliminary filings to site. Do you have any knowledge if Allied Artists Pictures has any results from their search for assets to sue? I am an edotor of China Articles. I only came across this material after reading China related court documents, related to assett searches, and a report to the LAPD Police Commission.
 * Please stop vandalizing my edits with Advert and NRS single use edits. ChinaUpdater (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're the one vandalising and a review of the edits proves that. Warriorboy85 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Alan (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Allied Artists International. I've tracked down some evidence regarding the court actions; apparently Richards was convicted, per the case ChinaUpdater mentioned. TheFeds 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but what's his connection to Allied Artists International? The article is about a company, not a single individual who was at one time connected to a totally different company by a totally different name.  It has no place in the article, unless he can demonstrate some connection.  Warriorboy85 (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Kimball Dean Richards, you will be blocked from editing. MuffledThud (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review the history of that page. It was removed by Speedy Deletion yesterday after being put up by the exact same user.  It was removed because it was slanderous.  It was also added and the article for Robert Fitzpatrick was removed and redirected to the Kimball Dean Richards article.  How can that be proper?  All I did is restore the vandalism created by ChinaUpdater.  Please help correct this dispute so no more vandalism occurs.  Thank you.  Warriorboy85 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just reviewed the page, but since I'm not an administrator the best I can do is report it to them for intervention. I have no idea who's in the right here, but I'll try my best to help stop the edit warring. MuffledThud (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats
You have been from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at  and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * Hi, I think you accepted my reason and authorized me to be unblocked. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'm supposed to do something, or you do it.  The instructions say I can't do it myself.  Can you tell me what to do?  Thank you --Warriorboy85 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

ChinaUpdater (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin, WarriorBoy85 clearly made a legal threat, and this is Sunday, so how does he have access to legal information, if he is purporting to be some neutral "historian", and why he editing his own company's article?
 * Furthermore, as you can see from his edit history, he only uses nonreliable sources from his own comapny's webpage, and has multiply violated the 3R rule after repeated warnings, and never talked on the discussion page, nor gave any basis for removing reliably sourced material.
 * The fact alone that he works for this ONE company, and ONLY edits things about this nonexistant company, and ONLY puts in legal claims, should mereit a permanent block.ChinaUpdater (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to threaten ChinaUpdater with legal action or claims. I have no way to bring any legal actions against anyone - I can't afford it! Although there wasn't enough room to elaborate in the edit comments, I intended to merely say that I phoned Allied Artists International and someone finally phoned me back. They told me not to worry about it, because they were going to have their legal department deal with it. I basically stopped editing after that, with a couple exceptions. If ChinaUpdater took that as a threat against him from me, then I apologize because that was never my intent. I really can't speak for Allied Artists International and it's obvious they're spending a lot of money with that huge lawsuit against Rooks and his friends. I was merely pointing out the same thing TheFeds pointed out, that if someone is misrepresenting facts and Allied Artists International brings it to the attention of the Judge in that case, I think it could get very nasty for the person doing it. Maybe I didn't express myself as well as I could have, but that's all I meant. Please accept my apology if you perceived my edit comment as a threat of legal action. I can only post this here, as the block stops me from posting it on ChinaUpdater's talk page. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if the block related to legal threats is rescinded, this sort of editing is still extremely detrimental behavior that would need to be addressed. 210.161.33.186 (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the argument and now understand the 3 revision rule. However, if you review the history of each revision, you will see that ChinaUpdater began vandalizing the article on October 17th with the sole intention of slandering Allied Artists International using unsourced material and completely misrepresenting the information in that material that was sourced. Reviewing this history shows that ChinaUpdater started the edit war and persistently continued to vandalize the article. Can you honestly look at the information he added (most of which is inaccurate I might add) and say that his intent was a neutral and fair article on Allied Artists International and its ownership of the Allied Artists trademarks? The honest answer is no. I am certainly willing to acknowledge that I improperly performed many reverts to counteract his vandalism. Had I known I had a limit, I wouldn't have done it. I know now, but someone needs to put a stop to ChinaUpdater's obvious agenda too. Thank you for any help you can give me. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Assessment of the Allied Artists case
Warriorboy85, I went through the material that was posted, and did some research of my own, and came to some conclusions about this matter. Please see Talk:Allied Artists International for my conclusions. In short, I think there are strong and valid reasons to link Kim Richards to Kimball Dean Richards, and mention him in the Allied Artists International article—but the article should not only be about him, it should be about the company. ChinaUpdater needs to work on being less belligerent and persistent, and needs to respect Wikipedia's policies about properly attributing controversial material to reliable sources. He's being watched for any more bad behaviour, and will probably get himself blocked if he makes any more questionable moves in the next 24 hours.

Also, seeing as you've been blocked, my advice would be to rescind your legal threat, and apologize to ChinaUpdater, and clarify to him that you are not, and will not pursue legal action over past events. That will probably get you unblocked, if you're interested in editing constructively. TheFeds 02:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi TheFeds, thank you for your information. I didn't threaten ChinaUpdater with legal action. I phoned Allied Artists and left a message for them to call me back. They did. When they called me back, I explained what was going on. I am a film buff and admit that I like Allied Artists and support their come back. But I'm not in a position to bring legal action against anyone and merely stated that Allied told me they were going to have their legal department handle it. As far as recommending that Kim Richards, Dean Richards, William Dean Richards and Kimball Dean Richards (all names ChinaUpdater has used for the same alleged person) are one in the same, I don't think there's evidence of that. In fact, another user points out that Kimball Dean Richards is the name of a father and son, both with the same name, both having worked with Allied Artists in the past and both associated with the same productions. Unless we know that "Kim Richards" is Kimball Dean Richards and that it is the same "Kimball Dean Richards" that has all of the bad stuff in his past, I don't think it's appropriate to switch the whole article around so it removes things like the references to the trademark registration (which you found) and point it entirely towards the past of Kimball Dean Richards, who may or may not be the same person as Kim Richards. Fortunately, they've protected the article from any more editing wars. Hopefully someone can put a stop to the slander against a company that has much more in its past than one person. Thank you for trying to help, and hopefully they'll lift the block, but I can't speak with ChinaUpdater. I tried and he ignored me. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're definitely right that we shouldn't give undue weight to Richards in the article about Allied. I do think that Richards—based on the L.A. Times material—deserves his own article.


 * As for the legal matter, I can see how he interpreted that as a threat, and understand your intent was not to personally threaten him. If you explain that to the blocking administrator, he will probably rescind the block.


 * Kim Richards/Kimball Richards are referred to by the L.A. Times as the same person. (He's the son of Richard Richards, an ex-California-senator, according to the Times.) It would be an improbable coincidence that two different people known as Kim Richards have mutual acquaintances in the members of the band Renegade, and were both CEOs of companies with similar names that had subsidiaries with identical names, all in the same city, and during the same time period.


 * But actually, there's a really simple way to test this beyond a reasonable doubt; if you've got a contact at Allied, would you be interested in asking them to confirm whether their Kim Richards is or was known as Kimball Dean Richards? TheFeds 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again TheFeds. Thank you for the pleasant and professional way you've explained everything. It truly makes it much easier to communicate. I have already tried explaining that to the blocking admin in the spot the block tells you to insert it. So far I haven't heard anything about the block one way or the other. As for asking about the difference between Kim Richards and Kimball Dean Richards, I did ask the person at Allied Artists who called me back. He told me that there were three persons named Richards previously associated with the company. The father named Richard Richards, his son named Kimball Dean Richards and the grandson also named Kimball Dean Richards. Apparently the grandson took over when the legal problems occurred for his dad. Although "Kim Richards" is the current CEO and headed the company during "turbulent times," it's the younger Kim Richards, who apparently is not the one who ChinaUpdater is referring to. I don't think it's as improbable as one might think when there's a Sr and Jr. involved. Just food for thought. At least we agree that the article should not be focusing on Kimball Dean Richards. One more thing. ChinaUpdater actually changed the link to the USPTO that cited the current registration and then claimed it was a 30 year old patent. You found the current trademark registration and the original assignments. Can you get Wikipedia to restore that information, since it's clearly been established as being accurate? Thanks again for all your help. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More facts to consider. I reviewed the IMDb database records for the "Kim Richards" currently associated with Allied Artists International at IMDb and it shows he worked on movies and programs in the following years: 1987 Hungry For Your Love, 1988 Easter Seals Telethon, 1989 Guiness Hall of Fame Awards, 1990 Renegade MTV Special, 1991 Switch, 1993 and 1994 Friday Night Videos, 2000 Children's Miracle Network, 2007 Queen Rock Montreal & Live Aid, 2008 Jerry Lewis Telethon and this year 2009 Renegade Live @ The House of Blues. There are years unaccounted for in that resume, but they don't correspond with the years ChinaUpdater claims Kimball Dean Richards was sentenced to twenty years in prison. The articles TheFeds quotes seem to show the time as being in the late 80's and early 90's. Unless they let prisoners out to work on movies and television shows, the resume for the current Kim Richards does not match the time frame for the Kimball Dean Richards ChinaUpdater is trying to reference. That's exactly why I think it's very unreliable to assume anything. I hope someone can intervene to make sure this article is unbiased and on represents facts. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional information, however there's an apparent discrepancy with the theory of two Kim Richards: the L.A. Times gives (the convicted) Kim Richards' year of birth as around 1956, meaning any son of his would have been, at best a young teenager (if not a child) in 1987. Since Allied's website, press releases, etc. all describe the current CEO Kim Richards as having had much experience in the business dating to the 1980s, including a prior stint as CEO, there's no reasonable way that he could have been the son of the Kim Richards convicted for frauds from the 1980s.


 * As for the rest of the timeline, I wasn't able to track down the length of sentence imposed on Richards, or what portion was served in prison. I don't know where ChinaUpdater is getting his 20 years. TheFeds 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Again TheFeds. I phoned Allied Artists today from work and spoke with their media relations department. Apparently there are in fact two Kim Richards (father and son) as I was originally told.  The reports that are being repeated relate to the older one, not the younger one, who I believe is now in his 50's.  His father is in his 70's and is the one with the questionable past.  Some of the original news reports confused the two, but I'm told retractions were later issued.  Perhaps you can find those retractions?  The younger one was just in his 20's when he took over Allied Artists as a result of his father's legal issues.  He is also the one who was a sound engineer and producer prior to his dad's legal troubles.  As I mentioned above, his IMDb credits support a history of productions during the very time ChinaUpdater claims he was in prison.


 * I see from other discussions that ChinaUpdater is now claiming that he is receiving death threats and has spoken with the Secret Service, LAPD and the SFPD. I take that as a legal threat that should be given far more weight that my telling him that Allied's legal department is dealing with the issue of vandalism. I have now apologized to him and asked the admin to unban me. My request was denied, although I believe it is WP policy to unban someone who's been banned for "legal threats" once they acknowledge no intent to pursue legal action.  I have explained that I have no desire or financial ability to pursue anything legal, and have likewise made it clear that I am uninterested in doing so.  Yet I remain banned.  ChinaUpdater has been repeatedly warned about his various violations and yet he uses every opportunity to slander anyone who disagrees with him.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allied Artists International
An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock
I suggest you use the unblock template again, and have another admin examine your request for unblock. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ftcnetworks logo png.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Ftcnetworks logo png.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. 66.57.4.150 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Luis-ludwig.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Luis-ludwig.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RenegadePublicity216.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RenegadePublicity216.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Renegade2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Renegade2.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:TonyDeLaRosa5-24-09.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TonyDeLaRosa5-24-09.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:KennyMarquez5-24-09.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KennyMarquez5-24-09.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LuisCardenas5-22-09.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LuisCardenas5-22-09.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Alliedartists5-22-09.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Alliedartists5-22-09.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 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SuperChat Screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SuperChat Screenshot.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 09:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:FTC Chat Control IE6.png
Thanks for uploading File:FTC Chat Control IE6.png I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 09:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:FTC Chat Control IE7.png
Thanks for uploading File:FTC Chat Control IE7.png I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 09:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chatlist Icons.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chatlist Icons.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 09:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to United Assurance Company Ltd., you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Corvus cornix talk  02:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. The article is extremely misleading in that it does not distinguish between the real Allied Artists and the false Allied Artists entities Robert Rooks created in an effort to bilk investors in a securities fraud. It fails to mention that Rooks and his fraudulent Allied Artists Pictures Corporation entities were found guilty of infringing on the Allied Artists trademarks or that they were enjoined from using the Allied Artists name in the future.  It also fails to mention that Rooks was held in contempt for continuing to infringe on the trademark.  The only reason I added that information is distinguish Rooks' fraudulent corporate entities from the real Allied Artists.  The Federal Judge issued a written order outlining all of this, and there are numerous mentions of it on the net as well as in the actual court order.  Can you tell me how to distinguish the two entities to prevent this article from defaming the real Allied Artists?  Thanks.  --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked in the past for your repeated violations of WP:BLP. You clearly know that your edits do not rely on reliable sources.  You must stop, or you will be blocked agian.   Corvus cornix  talk  05:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RR
I read your posting on RR. Do you know any news sources beyond what is in the article? I recall seeing on the evening news about some fraud in South Africa about ten years ago, involving 200,000 homes for the impoverished, who somehow got scammed. Is this the same story? Do you know where R "Mickey" R came from? There are a bunch of aliases and fronts involved in many actvities like these, and corporate filings often have names of fronts or aliases. Is "Kenta Rooks" an alias for RR? Do you know how to access corporate filings so a google news archive search can be done to find reliable secondary sources? 173.75.81.106 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Mickey" is a nickname for Robert Rooks, although I can't direct you to a specific source at this time. Kenta Rooks is the son of Robert Rooks and his name has been used on public corporations to get around his father's Securities and Exchange Commission ban and to hold assets that could otherwise be seized for judgments against his father.  There are a number of law firms and government agencies attempting to pierce the corporate veil and to prove that Kenta and each of the corporations are no more than an alter-ego of Robert Rooks.  You may want to do a Lexus-Nexis search to locate all pending litigation, as there are numerous throughout the country.  Corporate filings will show up on a Lexus-Nexis search and if you know the state of incorporation, most states have searchable databases on their department of corporations (or Secretary of State) websites.  Robert Rooks was criminally charged in Nevada 8 or 9 years ago, and those records are available.  There may be some information you can find on Google by searching his name.  Good luck and if you need anything else, hit me back and I'll try to help you. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should be conservative about using real people's names and aliases while making allegations about them which you can't source extremely well. Better to strike them and find the sources first.  Our policy on living people WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles.


 * Your edit in which you used this source (http://www.socialcheer.com/2010/12/robert-n-rooks-four-co-defendants-and.html), I think showed a good understanding of the narrative history (Which ip 173 might misunderstand a bit) but it is not a sufficiently reliable source for a claim about a living person, especially one related to their crime and conviction. Find the best source you can for this, at least in a published newspaper, and then add it back (or discuss doing so on talk). Ocaasi c 08:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Corvus cornix talk  05:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Terminology
Just a heads up: in Wikipedia parlance, Original Research is bad, Reliable Sources are good. Original Sources, well, no one calls anything that. Thanks for working to add the refs. We'll see how it looks when you're done and take out the 'original research' tags if everything checks out. Ocaasi c 08:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic i.p.
When an editor makes a request for privacy, we try to respect it. Some people are actually in danger, others don't want to risk becoming so, and some are just expressing a personal preference (rational or otherwise) to keep a subject away from their Real Life.

Using alternate accounts to accomplish this is permitted in very limited circumstances--provided they are cleared with administrators and only used on specific articles--but doing so to avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is not a legitimate reason for them. First off, defend yourself by adding the articles you care about to your WP:WATCHLIST. Then you can monitor changes to the articles regardless of who makes them. Second, politely/discretely ask the editor to notify you directly of any major contribution of discussion that happened/is happening under an ip. (I can do this for you). Third, if this continues to be a problem, consult administrators for intervention. Still, I'd hesitate to turn a content dispute into an administrative issue, unless it's preventing you from improving the articles and working to respond to the disputes.

I've commented at the disambiguation page regarding the BLP issue there, but I might add to it. Cheers, Ocaasi c 19:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't personally complained about the dynamic IP issue as I don't much care and know who's doing it. Ironically, using his IP as opposed to an account is actually less secure. From his IP I can identify exactly what part of the country he's located and someone with a legal concern over something he writes can issue a subpoena to his ISP to ascertain his subscriber details. It's a two step process, that requires Wikipedia to divulge the user's IP address when someone uses their proper account.  Just a point of interest. I don't care about it and with your help he seems to be approachable. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Using an ip is only less secure if it is actually an ip from where you live, as opposed to where you get coffee, or where to find an unblocked open proxy. I won't comment on any legal specifics, but getting an ISP to disclose anyone's actual identity is extremely difficult, and I doubt Wikipedia would casually divulge such information.  In fact, as a purely speculator commentary, Wikipedia is historically known for having a pretty prickly legal department when it comes to copyright and privacy issues; they don't have a reputation giving in to mere demands, unless they're very reasonable.  But if there's any actual legal intent here, you cannot chat about it, you must directly contact the WMF.  In fact, in those circumstances your account would likely be preemptively blocked while the details were resolved.  WP:LEGAL is the guide there.  I respect our i.p.s intentions.  Having spent weeks researching the elaborate fraud of one individual, he was shocked to see it spread in so many nefarious directions.  Then he found you defending the copyright of what he perceived to be merely another layer in that fraud.  So he's not taking your arguments lightly, although I fear that's hindering his ability to look at some of the details.  Unfortunately, this is what happens when topics with minimal secondary source coverage meet real world disputes that editors feel someone needs to be blamed for.  Incidentally, if the AAI dispute with Rooks is so critical, why didn't you write a section on it in the AAI article? Ocaasi c 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am NOT implying anything legal at all. I just know that other users have complained about PPdd's extensive use of changing IP's to edit articles that have nothing to do with me. I will call KCET tomorrow and get some additional information, however, I don't think they bought the property at the time of the bankruptcy.  I think there was something else on that land between the time.  As for why I didn't include the AAI v. Rooks dispute in the main article, all I can say is that I didn't consider it to be notable.  It was just one of Rooks' fraudulent schemes.  Between the many fraud lawsuits, Securities & Exchange Commission charges and convictions and other claims of misuse of public corporations, it just seemed like one small facet.  PPdd's desire to do an article on Rooks covering it all from an overall perspective is good, and I don't have a problem with including it as part of the AAI story.  I just don't want to confuse the public as to whether Rooks was actually ever the president of Allied Artists.  He named himself as the president of a bogus counterfeit company that infringed on AAI's trademark - big difference.  The distinction is essential if you want to avoid doing harm to AAI. I think you'll agree with that. Thanks for your help. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain deleted categories
Sorry, don't know what you are talking about. I suspect it has something to do with removing categories that you added back in some article where the category was deleted as the result of a discussion at WP:CFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the Renegade band article here. I would appreciate understanding exactly why a category was deleted for a band that is and was in existence for each of the years that were deleted. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The category was deleted since we don't categorize based on when something is active since it results in over categorization and category clutter. Since the category itself was deleted, the category entry was removed from the article since categories should not be red. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes sense. Thank you for explaining it to me.  I probably should have realized the category was red, but appreciate your patience.  Have a great day or night, whichever your case may be. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring at Allied Artists International
Please stop removing construction tags and reliable sources at Allied Artists International.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making 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. 64.134.232.21 (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't participated in your edit war, but I did report your edit war to the admins. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

== You are being discussed here ==

You are being discussed here. PPdd (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Meatpuppet investigation
PPdd (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI
Re this comment: Have you considered bring the matter to WP:SPI? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not sure of the procedure for bringing something to WP:SPI. If there's some helpful tutorial, I'll do it without a doubt.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down the WP:SPI page, about midway there is an input box with the heading "Investigation (case) to create or re-open:". Once you're there, the process is pretty much self explanatory.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the case further, I doubt that and  are related in any way at all.  Prior to her case being brought to WP:ANI, Katie restricted her editing to matters regarding geology and geophysics.  Her experience at ANI exposed her to the Allied Aritsts International debacle, and she decided to weigh in there as well.  This is not sockpuppetry, it is merely an editor seeing an interesting topic and jumping in.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Katie and PPdd both edited Louis Lesser's page. They are also both connected to Pearlasia Gamboa. I believe they are the same person.Springfalling (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you look at the history of both Pearlasia Gamboa and Louis Lesser, you'll see that they are both articles heavily edited by and that the same type of discussions, arguments, editing syntax and disagreements occurred. I think you'll see they are one in the same and the fact that appears to also be a WP:SP of, as well as. However, at this time it appears Katie has calmed down, so I intend to do the same and give him or her a chance to handle things properly. Thank you very much for your input and I hope things remain calm. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be courteous if you talk about someone, to notice them.
 * Yasheng Group recently started making OffWiki press releases for geology and mining claims that got attention of geologists in Arizona -
 * "Yasheng Group has staked an additional 48 placer mining claims covering 960 acres in La Paz County, Arizona near the Plomosa Mountain load and placer claims the company optioned in 2011. The Plomosa Mining District is characterized by linear mountain ranges separated by alluvium-filled basins. In southern Arizona, a belt of Precambrian metamorphic rock ranges forms a transition zone between the younger, predominantly volcanic desert mountains of the south and the folded and faulted highlands of central Arizona."]
 * This press releases is preposterous to any geologist who reads them - it is clear it was not made with involvement of a geologist, but appeared to simply cite regional desciptions unrelated to mining claims, taken from a high school textbook or general government website, to impress and confuse nongeolgoists with information unrelated to such a press release.


 * If you click the "history" tab of the Yasheng Group article, you find editor China Updater started the article with nonsense (the same nonsense I tried to remove). If you go to that user's talk page, it has Yasheng Group and Silk Route Museum at the bottom, and Allied Artists International at the top. ChinaUpdater articles are associated with PPD articles, who you accused of being the same person and shut down. I tried to remove the RS violating content added by China Updater from Yasheng and Silk articles. PPDD did Louis Lesser, and Pearlasia Gamboa. The Pearlasia Gamboa article is mainly about phony geology and mining claims, and the SEC reaction to them is the source. I assume from this the SEC has some sort of role regarding fake geological and mining claims. The blanking of the Louis Lesser article was of information about Craig Lesser, not Louis Lesser. CL is a name known to geologists since his cult operated in Lake County, the largest geothermal fields in California, and geolgogists are warned to exercise caution working there because of him. I tried to put the blanked content back in.


 * Just as I was undoing the anon editor RS violating edits putting ChinaUpdateer/PPDD stuff back in Yasheng Group, at almost the exact same time, an anon editor came in and blanked entire talk page sections at AAI, sections that simply quotes sections from very reliable news stories. I tried to summarize these stories in a sentence or two, and when I added them in, you reverted my edit. Every editor whose attention is drawn by one of these articles will do the same as I did. One of the blanked sources was the Arizona "Mojave Miner" reference that you deleted from the article. Yasheng Group is making mining claims in the Mojave and in Arizona. What is going on here?


 * The entire Yasheng Group article seems to have been written by people who have blocked accounts, after allegations by you. And for making the opposite edits I made at Yasheng Group! Think about it. Please read WP:AGF. You might consider that an apology might be in order, and consider striking your accusations on other pages. Thank you. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I apologize for not notifying you of my message. I guess it doesn't do it automatically, so I need to learn how to do that.  I have not paid attention to your Louis Lesser or Pearlasia Gamboa pages and don't really have much interest in those issues. I know that  created the Louis Lesser article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_Lesser&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history and has been responsible for the bulk of the edits to that article until the indefinite ban issued by Toddst1.  I know that  is editing the same articles that PPdd previously edited and is doing so using the same tone and with the same vehemence.  I know that Eric Diesel is connected to complaints and articles written about Louis Lesser, Pearlasia Gamboa and Robert Rooks, such as several articles I can't link to and http://lesserdieselenterprises.tumblr.com/ and http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64142115 and http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63911724.  A review of an article on Eric Diesel shows that it too was started by PPdd http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&dir=prev&action=history, and seems to be tied into the other materials published all over the net about these same interests.  I could go on and on posting links to the many similar articles posted throughout the net trying to draw a link between Pearlasia Gamboa, Louis Lesser, David Korem, Robert Rooks, etc.  The Pearlasia Gamboa article is also one that PPdd started and KatieBoundary seems to be heavily interested in now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearlasia_Gamboa&dir=prev&action=history.  Basically, it's pretty clear that PPdd and KatieBoundary have the exact same interests as Eric Diesel and that Eric Diesel's writings and writing style outside of WP are nearly identical.  I don't know anything about the Parlasia Gamboa / Louis Lesser situation and haven't weighed in on that.  I am an editor on the Allied Artists International article and I simply don't want to use that article to vent the issues being vented in some of the other articles you're interested in.  You are trying to link some old newspaper articles to someone with a different name in order to claim there's a controversy with the current company management.  You're confusing a father and son with similar names in the process.  I suspect you are correct about most of what has been written about all of the Pearlasia Gamboa matters and I think David Korem is in prison right now as a result of some of it.  I also suspect you are correct about Robert Rooks and Louis Lesser.  Mr. Lesser seems like a very colorful man with an interesting history.  I have no intention of interfering with your work on any of those articles.  I'm simply asking you not to use the AAI article as a method of making your points and in essence attacking a living person with allegations that may be true about his father.  I know we've been through this before, but there is a father or a Senior involved here and a son or a Junior involved.  The son actually has a different name than the father, but it's a shortened version of the same name.  Any time you have to put another name in a parenthetical behind the name you're attributing a cite to, you are demonstrating that the citation itself says something different than what you're trying to support or against whomever you're making the claim about.  Bottom line is this. I think you're trying to do the right thing for Mr. Lesser and have a good reason to be furious with the entire Pearlasia Gamboa situation.  I don't intend to interfere with your efforts there, but ask that you refrain from posting those allegations or trying to support them through the AAI article.  You left a phone number on some of the correspondence submitted in other non-WP sources.  Would you consider a telephone discussion to try and become allies rather than getting into these types of disputes? --Warriorboy85 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR KatieBoundary (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kenny Marquez for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenny Marquez 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/Kenny Marquez 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. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Renegade
Template:Renegade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Richard3120 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)