This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin J. Taylor. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text ((subst:AFC submission/submit)) to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 22:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin J. Taylor. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text ((subst:AFC submission/submit)) to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jarkeld (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing new article Anti-Justice League. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources. Please help by adding more sources to the article you created, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the material (see here for how to do inline referencing). Many thanks! PS If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Cind.amuse 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Cind.amuse 08:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cind.amuse 08:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Firestorm annual2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hang on)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit [2] on the disambiguation page Accelerando, as there is no Wikipedia article on either Accelerando (manga) or Yuki Seto; see MOS:DABRL. If you do create such an article, though, please feel free to update the dab page again. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude, concerning Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States, I think you should at least include a ref as to who (i.e., whatever nutcase) considers the place haunted, and by whom it is haunted, and reported sightings. Let's go for some solid facts here. Do you personally believe in hauntings? Do you think that the whole haunting thing can soon, or ever, become encyclopedic?--BillFlis (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't reference within categories, that's why the reference is on the main page for reportedly haunted locations. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Then don't do it. Hokey cruft shouldn't be encouraged.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And who decides that? Because if this keeps up, I'll be forced to bring this to the community and we know how this will go. While I understand your reservations on this material, it's none the less a part of this community and, generally speaking, accepted. At the very least, it's supported on Wikipedia. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Umemaro 3D 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umemaro 3D 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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Farix (t | c) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am here to inform you that I has rejected your recent abuse response case for 99.109.89.82 since it has only been blocked 2 times and the minimum length of 1 year. You are free to create a new abuse response case as Wikipedia:Abuse response/99.109.89.82 (2). Also remember to fill the info. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of hentai authors. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Farix (t | c) 01:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up a list is in not way considered vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is when you delete the majority of the article. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

When the majority of a list is unsourced and in violation of standing Wikipedia policies and guidelines relating to biographies, it is not vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 01:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

They were sourced with their work that is published and available in the United States in major retail. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is not a single source on that list to establishing their notability or inclusion. —Farix (t | c) 01:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the issue to the dispute resolution notice board: List of Hentai authors dispute

The article Anti-Justice League has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The fictional team does not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, the topic of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia as a stand-alone article since it falls into WP:IINFO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The thread was about an edit Δ made four months ago, removing a comment you intended for a talk page from his userpage. The thread was archived almost immediately as a bad report. If you want to see it, it is (for now) located at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Delta_listing_edits_as_vandalism_when_they_are_not. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I see someone claims I added that notice myself or had someone do it. Quite a few paranoid people here on Wikipedia it would seem. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Alucardbarnivous. You have new messages at Jack Sebastian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I think I've tried to emphasize that we need a secondary source noting that Harm is the fellow causing all the antics in the Young Justice episode. If not allow me to be clear; without that source, and w/out a terribly good reason as to why its vital to an understanding of the ep, we don;t need to have it in the summary. If you wish to discuss this, please make use of the article discussion page. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty severe for just noting a missing detail. I take it I'm not the first person to notice this error? It would appear it's conceded that Secret was Secret but it would seem her brother Harm is not so fortunate. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if my post came across as more severe than was intended. A lot of tv episodic articles are woefully uncited via secondary spurces; primary sources invite interpretations, and everyone has their own interpretation. Using a reliably-sourced secondary source takes the responsibility of subjectivity off our shoulders. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Space Ghost. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. yonnie (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)