Ghosts&empties

Archives

/Osama's cave

Salma Hayek

I must have clicked on the wrong version of the article for the revert of the vandalism that was put in. I'll try not to have it happen again. Dismas|^(talk) 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Because it makes us feel smarter than we are? D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Making a face

Thanks! I'm the one on the right, for the record... — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Emma Lazarus winning a contest

On December 28th, 2005, you edited the Statue of Liberty article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statue_of_Liberty&diff=33048180&oldid=32854887

Among other things, you added the phrase "the winner of a contest underwritten by the New York World to the sentence:

The poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, the winner of a contest underwritten by the New York World, was engraved on a bronze plaque in 1903, 20 years after it was written.

I've been looking for a source for these item about the contest, and haven't been able to find one. Most of the readily available material indicates that it was written as part of a fundraising effort in 1883, but the details of its having won a contest or that the contest was underwritten by the New York World are not mentioned. Could you indicate what your source for this fact is? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You said to consult the references in the Emma Lazarus article.

But... of those references, http://www.phy6.org/outreach/Jewish/Lazarus.htm%7C gives a 404 Not Found; one http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l#a1155 is a collection of her poems; and the third, http://www.jwa.org/exhibits/wov/lazarus/ says nothing about a contest, either on the cited page, or here. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pamela Smart

Actually, I missed that statement, and have since removed "one of the first of its kind prior to the O. J. Simpson trial." —tregoweth (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vichyssoise

You are sub-minutiae detritu

Anna Ohura

"T157cm B100(I) W58 H88" I have no clue what the T is. However, B 100 means she has a 39 inch bustline, and if the I works the same as western measurements, means that her cup size is 9 cm more than that (a D cup is 4 inches over the line under the bust), which is equivalent to, well, a D cup. So a Japanese 100I = an American 38D, give or take. But the 157 is definitely not her circumference at the breasts. I have no clue what the T is." --Golbez 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Japanese models use stats consisting of abbreviations and measurements in centimeters; T is "Tall" or height in cm, B is "Bustline" followed by (cup size), W is "Waistline", and H is "Hips". Anna Ohura's ribcage measurement is approximately 69cm (27 inches) compared to other models of her size. Her Japanese bra size would be 75I (or 30I in North American sizing).

Reshad Feild

I have deleted the following comments from the article because 1) I think they refer rather to The Springfields than to Reshad Feild, and 2) because I know from Reshad Feild himself that the story behind the name "The Springfields" was a different one.

"Like the Ramones, all members of the group took the same last name – Springfield – which may have been an expansion on his surname. The group's vocalist took the name Dusty Springfield, giving Feild a putative, if indirect, namecheck on one of the most respected vocalists in modern music."--Alois Alexander 11:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

Respond to User talk:Gmaxwell#No gallery of thumbnails

Fair use image of Ms. A. Barbeau

You said: "I added this image originally. The fair use rational is that it's the promotional photo and cover for her autobiography. It's also a well known photo that identifies her better than the other photo from imdb. Sufficient?"

Well, I removed the image because it was missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. If it is the cover of her autobiography, it would presumably not be a promotional photo. it can be at most one or the other. However, assuming it is the cover of her autobiography, it would be reasonable to use it in an article about her provided that the hand-written detailed fair-use rationale makes note of the fact that it is being used to illustrate the publication of the book, not to identify Ms. Barbeau (book covers cannot be used to depict a person). --Yamla 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert copyrighted images without providing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale for their use. Additionally, please do not remove {{unverifiedimage}} tags from images missing source information. --Yamla 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll give you several hours. Sometimes my fingers get twitchy, particularly on a Friday. --Yamla 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: "If it was fair use in the middle of the page, why isn't it fair use at the top of the page? The book for which is image is the cover is discussed and quated extensively throughout the article. The MoS layout that a sole image should appear top left."

In the middle of the page, an argument can be made that it is depicting the book which is fair-use. At the top, it is depicting the person, which is not fair-use for a book cover. --Yamla 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sure you are getting quite frustrated over this whole matter. I want to let you know that I really appreciate you remaining civil and especially that you are clearly working very hard to get this whole fair-use thing correct. I am perhaps holding you to an exceptionally high standard wrt fair-use images. It is certainly the case that most fair-use images are not subjected to this level of pedantic scrutiny. Once we get this correct, I'll award you a barnstar if I haven't already. --Yamla 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth

Hello. Please do not remove relavent images from articles, as you did to Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth's Image:Arkham.jpg. The critia for removal was proven to be illogical, as the image does "show something", namely, the Bat-like creature which the Arkham family saw. Furthermore, as a direct result of your removal, the image was deleted, disabling better Wikipedians from correcting your mistake. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's clear now, but with a lot of daylight it looked like a black box. Ghosts&empties 01:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: There once was a man from Nantucket

Your grammar correction ("If my ear were a cunt, I could fuck it.") is much appreciated. Good grammar is the hallmark of decorum. Ghosts&empties 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not so sure now... when I reflect on it and analyse and think carefully, the word "were" is still correct, but not for reasons of past tense. As it is quoting what he said at the time, he was saying that if it were the case that his ear was a cunt, he could then fuck it. Gee, all this naughty language :-) Timeshift 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to say the corrected version blows my mind. Ear were, ear were, ear wear (damn!) ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For maintaining a focus on prosody and grammar in the face of adversity.

Belatedly awarded by Wanderer57 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Something's gotta give

I have responded to your comments on my talk page. I would normally copy-and-paste my response here but it is rather long. You are not obligated to respond, of course, but I thank you for your input and appreciate what you have to say. --Yamla 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You liked some Honest scenes, didn't you

There is a certain theme to the changes ;) KittenKlub 02:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to know

Someone may be faking your signatures: [1] Might be copied from some archive, I don't know - just thought I would let you know just in case.--Konstable 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to know that Konstable wants to take revenge, because he was not allowed to cover for his buddy, and seems to stalk me. It was a message left on the userpage moved to the talkpage. Thank you for stalking me. KittenKlub 10:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Miriam G

Anybody complaioning about pics would have a lot of work = I uploaded more than a hundred :-) Stellatomailing 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Longer than subject warrented" failings

Two people have brought up disputes over your failing of some articles for the reason "Longer than subject warrented". Are these articles off-topic in your opinion, or much too detailed? "Longer than subject warrented" seems entirely subjective, and "is the proper length of the subject" isn't a GA criteria; staying on topic is. Homestarmy 06:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a subjective judgement. Length is a criteria in determining good article status: "A good article may be any length, as long as it properly addresses all major aspects of the topic." The proper length for a given topicis based on what the length and level of detail the reader wants in the editor's judgement. Some of the articles being nominated are obsessively long, which doesn't lead to a good encyclopedia. One well-written, well-organized article I failed, with a note of encouragement, was [Eleanor Rigby]], which is an important song , but to be the proper length for the typical reader of an encyclopedia needs to be shorter. Editing for length (even if it means deleting less important content) is an important part of good writing, especially for an encyclopedia. Reducing length is not that difficult and does not require much specialized knowledge. Ghosts&empties 07:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you felt that the subjects went into too many details, and therefore went off-topic? It's just i've never seen someone put it as "Longer than subject warrented", and you caused two disputes to pop up heh. Homestarmy 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in your conversation but instead of only giving the sentence "Longer than subject warrented", it would be a more helpful review if the writer of the entry would be told what are the sections he can cut or dump in subarticles or re-write in order to eliminate material that seem off-topic. Lincher 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:CupcakesFrosted_wb.jpg

Why did you remove the license and source from this image, and add deletion templates to it? If you have some reason to believe that User:Elf is lying about having taken the photograph, please nominate the article at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Thanks. Jkelly 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: William Shatner

Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Capone in Chicago

The reason you gave for the deletion is obtuse, and the lone bit of folklore was properly identified. Most Americans associate Al Capone with ruthless, based upon both the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and the murder of two of his associates at a formal dinner party.

Some of us put time into our contribution, as we are trying to improve Wikipedia. If you delete, at least give a longer explanation, or just refrain in the future.

I see what you mean about how the baseball bat bit is meaningful for character development, but I deleted it for two reasons:

1) there are at least 3 versions of who was doing the beating - or it may be completely myth 2) it didn't really change the arc of Capone's career

If you want to treat this incident in an encyclopedic way, you need to consider and reference several sources. As is, the explanation differs from other accounts of the same incident in Wikipedia (See John Scalise).

I hate to be the guy that nags "More references!", "Explain other theories!", but when it comes to Capone, there's often more myth than fact, as Geraldo learned the hard way. Ghosts&empties 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Magazine Covers and Stuff

You said: "As you know better than anyone, an image of a magazine cover is fair use for an article about that magazine. So why did you delete the cover images for Stuff (magazine) and Blender (magazine) despite our previous dialogue? If there's a minor problem with the image tag, fix that if you like, but don't obliterate the images that obviously are not a copyright violation. I cannnot figure out how to retrieve the cover images you deleted for Stuff (magazine) and Details (magazine) so I'd appreciate your help."

I'm sorry, I haven't had the chance to go back and verify. I'm not ignoring you. My understanding is the following. Legally, we are probably permitted to use a magazine cover to depict the magazine generally. However, Wikipedia policy, which is more restrictive than the law requires (for example, no copyrighted images in user space, no matter what the rationale) still does not permit this. I haven't had the chance to double-check to see if this has changed recently so I may be out to lunch. I am sorry that you and I are running up against this. --Yamla 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you can remember the file names, I'm sure I can pull the files out of the history. It may be easiest to email the resulting files to you. Is your email hooked up to the Wikipedia? I'm quite happy finding some other means of recovering the images, though, if you desire your privacy. --Yamla 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. If magazine covers are not OK in articles about the magazine, then about 100 articles about magazines have copyvios. As far as restoring the imaages, it seems were in the realm of tort law so you carry out a remedy yourself or pay compensatory damages of 43KB. Thanks Ghosts&empties 03:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lisa

Hi, Ghosts&empties. My editions to Lisa Fonssagrives were not vandalism, as you though. The article had some very POV statements ("She was both muse and inspiration to the cream of fashion photographers..." and "...but she was so much more"), weasel words ("Many people consider..."), unfree images lacking a sound rationale and extraordinary unsourced claims ("no model has surpassed her number of Vogue magazine covers"). I'm not saying the text marked with {{fact}} is untrue, I just think they should be properly sourced (using the <ref/> tag). Let's work on improving this article. Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Ghosts&empties, I'll try to get to citations on this article soon. I remember doing the research and it shouldn't be too hard, but I'm quite busy, just now and will try to get it done next week. At the time I made my contribution to the article, there wasn't the amount of focus that has been made more recently on individual citations. Doc ♬ talk 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop and talk issues out with other editors on article talk pages or their talk pages. You are currently, in my viewpoint, edit warring with another editor. This is unacceptable, we need to talk our differences out and not insult other uses. I know you can settle this out peacefully. Thank you, Yanksox 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With the comments in the edit summaries and my request to the original author regarding Mr. Badali's requests, quite a bit of polite dialogue was occuring. The edits in article show some convergence. Currently there are too many tags, but I think the original author will fill in the salient references.Ghosts&empties 12:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of Jennifer Lopez

Thank you for experimenting with the page Jennifer Lopez on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Kylef81 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cite sources

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to the Robert Chesebrough article. Please find and add reliable citations to your edits so that others may verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seven dirty words by the man from Nantucket

I have one word for you, in all due respect: "cocksucker". The difference between "suck it" and "cocksucker" is not much of a stretch, especially compared to the flexibility required to perform such an act. This article is like Scrabble; the point is to score by wikifying as creatively as possible. "Seven dirty words" is definitely a 10-point link. Ghosts&empties 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, if you it's really worth that many points, I guess you have a point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There once was a man from Nantucket

We'll have to agree to disagree on this rubirosian item, it seems, since it's a judgement call. But I think a word that confuses virtually every reader isn't a very good word for an encyclopedia to use when explaining something. - DavidWBrooks 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

About Image:Barbeaus.jpg

Image:Barbeaus.jpg doesn't have its mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. It certainly can be used to illustrate the book itself, though it cannot be used at the top of the page to depict Barbeau. To be clear, it can be used in the article itself if attached to a paragraph dealing with the book, and with a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 18:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for your comments nice to hear from someone who has a similair mind set as i do on wikipedia. And congrats as being the first person to comment on my efforts of my userpage, Thanks! KingstonJr 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne Barbeau

You said: "Why is the image from the cover of her book no longer fair use? The image and its location on the page have been contested several times, but its fair use status was upheld. Have WP policies changed?"

Yes, I'm sorry to say, they have. Recently, it was decided that we may no longer use copyrighted non-free images to depict living people except in extraordinary conditions. We may only use free images. Please see WP:FUC. While I would not blame you for not assuming good faith on my behalf, please understand that I did not instigate this policy change. --Yamla 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Another playboy breast list deletion debate

I notice that you were involved in the last deletio debate for this article. Have you seen this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts. Interestingstuffadder 19:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne Barbeau image

You said: "After reading Wikipedia:Fair use I still disagree with your interpretation of copyright law in your deletion the image of Adrienne Barbeau used in her iconic poster and her autobiography, both of which are mentioned in the article. The discussion of her poster comes as close to critical commentary as feasible for a poster. Let's fix this omission."

You are mistaken, it has nothing to do with copyright law. The policy in question is entirely Wikipedia's, and is listed in WP:FU. We are only permitted to use freely-licensed images to depict living people. Certainly, we could use the poster in an article about that poster, or to illustrate the movie advertised (assuming it is a movie poster). The problem comes in to play when using a fair-use image in the infobox (that is, as a "lead image"); we are strictly prohibited from doing so. --Yamla 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Man from etc.

Hey, what fun is this argument if you're going to reasonable and adult???? I don't see how adding a jarringly out-of-place word makes this article more suitable for an encyclopedia - I think the article is a fine example of the unorthodox approach that makes wikipedia valuable - but I will bow to your conviction. - DavidWBrooks 21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick question re: Shae Marks

Just curious, why did you remove the link to Marks' Playboy Playmate page from the external links section of her article? Dismas|^(talk) 05:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Deleted one more than the two dead links. Ghosts&empties 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:RC-anytime-anywhere.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RC-anytime-anywhere.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture change

Erm, if you like that pic better, I guess that's fine, though I was a bit surprised at the edit summary that you used. [2] Since it's not an area that you normally edit in though, I was curious how you ran across it? :) --Elonka 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for letting me know. Well, though I realize that it may not have been intended as a WP:BLP violation, I would still argue that since I'm not notable for cleavage, that such a caption is probably original research.  ;) --Elonka 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Book and magazine cover photos

You said: "How is the book jacket picture of this author Image:Lahiri2.PNG OK, but not Adrienne Barbeau's? WP uses hundreds of magazine cover photos of article subjects. Are magazines different than books? I suspect that you'd agree that WP application of policies regarding photos is inconsistent just as interpretation of image copyright laws is complex and often subjective. Has WP ever received compliants about use of magazine or book cover photos? Many articles (such as Jhumpa Lahiri's so please don't delete it) benefit tremendously from a photo. If someone has gone to the work of uploading a book or magazine cover photo to illustrate the article's subject person, why delete it? It seems counterproductive. When different fair use policepersons apply different standards, the seemily arbitrary outcome can be especially agravating for rookie image uploaders."

That image is not okay. It's a fair-use image used solely to depict a living person so is in blatant violation of WP:FU. I would agree that a large number of fair-use images violate WP:FU and that it is a huge job tagging all the images accordingly. As to why we should delete the image if it violates WP:FU, that is because Wikipedia is trying to build a free encyclopedia. It's one of our core policies. Using fair-use images where a freely-licensed image would suffice is in direct contradiction to that core policy. --Yamla 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical couples edits

I noticed you removed the Radiguet picture but gave no reason for it. Was the deletion unintentional? Also, about the Chinese emperors, I will try to locate the source for that statement, it was not made up. Haiduc 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I do not feel strongly about it, one way or the other, but I am not sure that is a legitimate reason. After all, where does it say that symbolical representations are not allowed? This seems to strive for a literalism that diminishes rather than enhances the project. Haiduc 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in XL (magazine)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on XL (magazine), by Joie de Vivre, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because XL (magazine) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting XL (magazine), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate XL (magazine) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Superhero

Pretty authoritative def! Nice! --Tenebrae 20:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have — great book. The language is so lyrical and the characters so human and complex, it makes you just want to stop and never try to write anything again. "I'm not worthy!"  :-)

If you like Chabon, Thomas Berger's work might also appeal. Cheers! --Tenebrae 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Charlton.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlton.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. BetacommandBot 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Handbra

An article on which you previously commented has been proposed for deletion again, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination). You may wish to comment.DGG (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gliding Bird

Hi. This is to disagree gently with your edit to Emmylou Harris (summary: "delete confusing, unimportant tangent"). I'm not clear on why you found it confusing. Also, it seems to me that it's not unimportant, since it's talking about her first album; had Gliding Bird been supported by a label that didn't go belly up, the path of her career might well have been very different. I do agree that it's a bit tangential and probably doesn't belong in the lede. If you have any thoughts on where it could go instead and how it might be written more clearly, I'd be grateful. No obligations now ;) Rivertorch (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Daffy the assassin

Thanks for reverting that fellow's edit. Some people like to impose their arbitrary opinions on everyone else.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have reverted the vandalism you performed on Barbara Stanwyck and Robbie Knievel. Continued vandalism may result in a block. Horologium (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Samuel Fuller. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

woops. thanks 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Savage! (film) - copyright violation

I've removed the section of this article which appears to have been copied from IMDB, as a coyright violation. PamD (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Other people's talk pages

Please read WP:BLANKING before reinstating warnings or comments on other people's talk pages when they remove them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ghosts&empties. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 21:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from The Green Mile (novel). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Green Mile (novel). 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. What is your problem!!! If you want to redo the plot summary, fine, but quit screwing up the rest of the article in doing so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved our discussions to Talk:The Green Mile (novel). Again, I ask you stop reverting and readding "magical negro" as a link anywhere in the plot. Again, this needs to be stated by a reliable source, not just your personal opinion, and it belongs in a reception section, not as part of the plot summary as is it NOT summary, but interpretation. Your continued adding it as a link anywhere without a source is WP:OR and a potential WP:BLP violation. Further, your continued insistence at readding it against discussion and despite the warning above is not appropriate. Please stop the edit warring already and DISCUSS before you get us both blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ghosts&empties! 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 154 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Anika Knudsen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)